Is the MSFC group a minority at your school?

[Thievery Corp.]

---

Members do not see this ad.

The reason that I ask is mainly because at our school we have a group but it is not that big. Oh, I suppose that is b/c I'm in South Dakota and have a hell of a battle on our hands for the next four weeks.🙁

 

[Soleil9]

Keep up the fight!!! We are watching everything closely, and we hope the people side with the health of the women of your state. It is so important for the future care of our patients.

 

[SMRT]

At my school we have been pretty small for the past few years (~20 people). But this year we had like 100 people at our intro meeting. Yay choice! I think that most people (at my school at least) are pro-choice. It's just a matter of getting people interested in being part of a pro-choice group that they don't think is too radical or hard-core! At my school it's a battle against apathy rather than a battle against the anti-choicers.

 

[Thievery Corp.]

Thanks for the support!

At my school we have been pretty small for the past few years (~20 people). But this year we had like 100 people at our intro meeting. Yay choice! I think that most people (at my school at least) are pro-choice. It's just a matter of getting people interested in being part of a pro-choice group that they don't think is too radical or hard-core! At my school it's a battle against apathy rather than a battle against the anti-choicers.

Thats just it. Our group is pretty moderate, and I think that moderate seems to be an extinct word in the current politial climate unfortunatly.

I think the voters of our state realize just how bad this bill: referred law 6 really is.

 

[Doctor Bagel]

They're such a minority that we don't even have an active chapter as far as I can tell. We're listed as having a chapter, but I haven't heard anything about it. I will note that I'm in the reddest of the red states. Statistics show that the majority of Americans are pro-choice, and I expect that plays out in medical schools. Sometimes we don't speak up much, though, in an attempt to avoid some very hateful rhetoric.

 

[evade]

We're definitely not a minority, but we are certainly fighting against apathy these days. I think a lot of people forget that not everyone is pro-choice, which is easy to do since we're in CA. As such, we're hosting a LOT of speakers lately, and putting on a lot of events. We're working with our local Planned Parenthood to defeat Prop 85 (parental notification law for teens seeking abortion), and we're trying to get people really jazzed up about it.

Interestingly, we do have a very small but rather vocal group of anti-abortion folks who have billed themselves "Medical Students for Life." A couple of them believe that contraception (like OCs) = abortion. I gotta say, that kinda shocked me, seeing as how I'm at a pretty liberal school. Anyone else have the same experience?

 

[8744]

...We're working with our local Planned Parenthood to defeat Prop 85 (parental notification la for teens seeking abortion), and we're trying to get people really jazzed up about it...

Oh yeah. Whoopee! Let's get all jazzed up about it! Teens don't have to involve their parents! Happy days are here again!

 

[Northerner]

We're definitely not a minority, but we are certainly fighting against apathy these days. I think a lot of people forget that not everyone is pro-choice, which is easy to do since we're in CA. As such, we're hosting a LOT of speakers lately, and putting on a lot of events. We're working with our local Planned Parenthood to defeat Prop 85 (parental notification la for teens seeking abortion), and we're trying to get people really jazzed up about it.

Interestingly, we do have a very small but rather vocal group of anti-abortion folks who have billed themselves "Medical Students for Life." A couple of them believe that contraception (like OCs) = abortion. I gotta say, that kinda shocked me, seeing as how I'm at a pretty liberal school. Anyone else have the same experience?

Educate me - why is this law inappropriate?

 

[Callogician]

---

 

[Callogician]

Some abortion cartoons to fan the flames...

 

[evade]

Educate me - why is this law inappropriate?

I won't get into a flame war with anyone over this, but I'll answer your question. Teens are considered adults (and as such, are not required to notify or obtain consent from a parent) when it comes to three and only three things in medicine: mental health, treatment for drug and alcohol abuse, and all things sexual health. This includes obtaining birth control, treatment for STDs, and yes, making decisions regarding what to do with an unplanned pregnancy. No one's debating the first two on this list; why attack the third?

The majority of teens already involve a parent when they decide to terminate a pregnancy. Those who do not are far, far more likely to cite fear of abuse (psychological or physical) or fear of being kicked out of the house as reasons why they don't wish to tell a parent. If we were to pass a law stating that these young women have to tell an abusive parent that they're pregnant and wish to have an abortion, we run the risk that these women will resort to alternative measures.

In other states with parental notification or consent laws, such as Massachussets, Missouri, and Mississippi, the in-state teen abortion rate declined, but the teen abortion rate in neighboring states rose by nearly the same amount. It's not that teens aren't getting abortions, it's that they're waiting longer (indeed, there are more second-trimester abortions taking place in surrounding states than there were previously) and traveling long distances to do so. This, clearly, is more dangerous, and is NOT a desirable outcome. Further, there are fears that teenagers who are unable to travel out of state to obtain an abortion but feel that they cannot have a baby will resort to drastic measures such as attempting to self-abort. There are plenty of "instructions" on the internet for such things, and it's a valid concern.

There is a provision for judicial bypass, but it's not a particularly valid option for your average teenager. It requires a lot of knowledge about legal procedure (which I sadly do not have, and therefore can't expound upon), added time, and the decision as to whether or not a young woman can have an abortion without notifying her parents ultimately rests with the judge, who may or may not grant her that option. Some judges in other states are notoriously anti-abortion, and simply don't ever say yes to these women. And again, even if a woman is able to obtain an abortion without telling her parents, that's added time, and abortion procedures become more complicated the longer you wait.

Lastly, here in California, teen pregnancy rates have been steadily falling over the last decade, moreso than the national rates have been falling. Abortion rates have also been falling. We're clearly doing something right. The parental notification law won't help; if anything, it's going to harm the state's teens, because they're going to do what teens in other states have already done: wait longer and travel across state lines to get abortions anyway. We can't legislate good communications and relations within families. All we can do is help our patients make the best and safest decisions for themselves.

All data, claims, etc. come directly from this publication by the Center for Reproductive Health Research and Policy at UCSF:

http://crhrp.ucsf.edu/publications/files/ParentalNotification_2006Aug.pdf

I highly suggest reading it if you're interested.

 

[45408]

Interestingly, we do have a very small but rather vocal group of anti-abortion folks who have billed themselves "Medical Students for Life." A couple of them believe that contraception (like OCs) = abortion. I gotta say, that kinda shocked me, seeing as how I'm at a pretty liberal school. Anyone else have the same experience?

We've got one too, and that would be the one I would join. Certain types of contraceptions are intended to cause abortions, so depending on when you believe there's human life, it would be wrong.

 

[Thievery Corp.]

I think that the issue is California is much less cut and dry as the one here in South Dakota. The one here provides NO exceptions for rape/and incest(sp?). As well, this law makes it very dangerous to be a physician in South Dakota (particulary those that deliver babies)

Example--> fetuses that have lethal mutations (ancephaly for example) would have to be carried to term, and birth could NOT be induced by the physician at any point because the fetus will die, and under this law that is concidered aborting the fetus. Physicians could be criminally charged.
There are far more examples but also the mothers heath here is not provised for only her life. Well, gee, where do those blur? Preeclampsia? or due we have to wait until shes about die before we pull the placenta?

Again, this law not only effect women, but there physicians are at serious risk as well.👎 👎 👎

 

[evade]

I think that the issue is California is much less cut and dry as the one here in South Dakota. The one here provides NO exceptions for rape/and incest(sp?). As well, this law makes it very dangerous to be a physician in South Dakota (particulary those that deliver babies)

Example--> fetuses that have lethal mutations (ancephaly for example) would have to be carried to term, and birth could NOT be induced by the physician at any point because the fetus will die, and under this law that is concidered aborting the fetus. Physicians could be criminally charged.
There are far more examples but also the mothers heath here is not provised for only her life. Well, gee, where do those blur? Preeclampsia? or due we have to wait until shes about die before we pull the placenta?

Again, this law not only effect women, but there physicians are at serious risk as well.👎 👎 👎

I agree, the SD law is the worst of the worst. I'm definitely not saying we've got it as bad as you. I've spent a lot of time working with geneticists, and I've seen firsthand the sorts of things that can go wrong with fetal development, and they're grisly. When the pregnancy goes bad, more often than not it's bad for the mother's health as well. Even if it doesn't hurt her physical health, it would be devastating to her psychologically. I can't imagine finding out that I was carrying a fetus with cyclopia, or with no brain, or with no heart; then being told that I had to carry to term whether I wanted to or not. And it never ceases to astound me that adults, who presumably have mothers, would place the life of a fetus above that of the woman. It's utterly dumbfounding.

I take issue with the CA law because it doesn't fix anything. All it does is endanger teens who are often already in lousy situations, increase liability for doctors, and put more of a load on our state's judicial system, which last I checked, wasn't exactly the paragon of efficiency to start with.

 

[Thievery Corp.]

I take issue with the CA law because it doesn't fix anything. All it does is endanger teens who are often already in lousy situations, increase liability for doctors, and put more of a load on our state's judicial system, which last I checked, wasn't exactly the paragon of efficiency to start with.

Yea, that sounds like a bad situation as well.
Oh, and kudos on your answer above. Well done.

 

[Wizard of Oz]

Okay, sorry, I've googled this, and all that I can come up with is Marshall Space Flight Center and Melbourne Science Fiction Club. Does MSFC stand for Medical Students for Choice? I've never heard of it before.

I think that most people don't get involved with this sort of issue because there is a perception that most people are pro-choice, and pro-choice has already "won" as far as the Supreme Court is concerned. So they think it would be like having a "Medical Students Against Slavery" club or something.

I don't have a uterus so I'm probably unqualified to say what people with uteri should and should not be able to do. I will say, though, that a lot of people misunderstand what it means to be pro-choice. I may think that having an abortion is personally wrong (playing devil's advocate here), but that doesn't mean I think you shouldn't have the right to make that decision for yourself. Choice just means you have options, not that you are necessarily going to have an abortion.

 

[evade]

Okay, sorry, I've googled this, and all that I can come up with is Marshall Space Flight Center and Melbourne Science Fiction Club. Does MSFC stand for Medical Students for Choice? I've never heard of it before.

I think that most people don't get involved with this sort of issue because there is a perception that most people are pro-choice, and pro-choice has already "won" as far as the Supreme Court is concerned. So they think it would be like having a "Medical Students Against Slavery" club or something.

I don't have a uterus so I'm probably unqualified to say what people with uteri should and should not be able to do. I will say, though, that a lot of people misunderstand what it means to be pro-choice. I may think that having an abortion is personally wrong (playing devil's advocate here), but that doesn't mean I think you shouldn't have the right to make that decision for yourself. Choice just means you have options, not that you are necessarily going to have an abortion.

Yes, MSFC stands for Medical Students for Choice. Their website is www.ms4c.org, in case you're curious.

And I agree that a lot of people mistake "pro-choice" for "pro abortion." No one, absolutely no one, is advocating that all women terminate their pregnancies. That's just as wrong as advocating that all women continue their pregnancies. We're all about ensuring that a woman has all her options available to her.

 

[evade]

Yea, that sounds like a bad situation as well.
Oh, and kudos on your answer above. Well done.

Thanks, and thank you for fighting the good fight. It's tough, in a climate like that, to stand up for what you believe in.

 

[8744]

...And I agree that a lot of people mistake "pro-choice" for "pro abortion." No one, absolutely no one, is advocating that all women terminate their pregnancies. That's just as wrong as advocating that all women continue their pregnancies. We're all about ensuring that a woman has all her options available to her...

As nefarious an example of "doublethink" as I have ever heard.

 

[78222]

I don't even know if there is a MSFC at my school.

 

[45408]

As nefarious an example of "doublethink" as I have ever heard.

I was wondering if I was the only one who thought it odd to claim killing all babies is as bad as not killing any babies.

 

[Rogue Synapse]

Strangely, there is a relatively active MSFC group at my very conservative school (we have awesome t-shirts), and there is no corresponding anti-abortion group. Weird...

 

[Doctor Bagel]

I was wondering if I was the only one who thought it odd to claim killing all babies is as bad as not killing any babies.

Yep, here we go. 🙄

 

[8744]

Yep, here we go. 🙄

Oh no. I'm tired of arguing about it. I just think saying you want to get people "jazzed up" about removing parents from the loop is kind of an odd, some might say insensitive, way of putting it.

And left or right, pro-abortion or pro-life, we ought to shun "doublespeak" and other cheap political jargon.

 

[trustwomen]

My group, at McGill, is facing the same kind of "apathy" challenges as I would imagine you'd see in California. Most students are definitely pro-choice (again, some might not personally have an abortion but they don't think it's their place to tell others to do with their body, therefore they are pro-choice).

Kudos to everyone who's involved in MSFC aka MS4C, and good luck for the year. Especially those that are fighting hostile schools in hostile states...

Just to add some data to the parental consent discussion: I did a study of minors (under 17) seeking abortions in NYC - no parental consent required - and 73% had told a parent or guardian anyway... Those who hadn't sometimes had some truly horrific stories behind it. Installing parental consent laws does not "put parents in the loop", it simply puts up a barrier to abortion care that many teens will be unable to cross. Good parents will be "in the loop" anyway, and giving bad parents the right to force their child to give birth (by denying consent for abortion, or by threatening the child after being "notified") is not the solution.

Parents aren't able to legally force their minor children to have abortions, although a surprising number do try. Fortunately, the clinics won't comply. Then, counselors have to explain to these angry parents why they don't have the right to "decide for my daughter, she's my responsibility" -- after all, in parental consent states, "if our decisions were reversed, I'd have that right"... And there's no arguing that point. Man, there is nothing more angry than a mom that doesn't want to see her 16-year-old "throw away her future" on "that bum" and have a baby that "I'd wind up raising anyway". But rights are rights, and they go both ways, and it's our job to defend our patients.

To all the MSFC chapters, much love from a friend...😍

 

[burlypie]

I think that the issue is California is much less cut and dry as the one here in South Dakota. The one here provides NO exceptions for rape/and incest(sp?). As well, this law makes it very dangerous to be a physician in South Dakota (particulary those that deliver babies)

Example--> fetuses that have lethal mutations (ancephaly for example) would have to be carried to term, and birth could NOT be induced by the physician at any point because the fetus will die, and under this law that is concidered aborting the fetus. Physicians could be criminally charged.
There are far more examples but also the mothers heath here is not provised for only her life. Well, gee, where do those blur? Preeclampsia? or due we have to wait until shes about die before we pull the placenta?

Again, this law not only effect women, but there physicians are at serious risk as well.👎 👎 👎

...and then you can have the worry that doctors and women have in El Salvador: Ectopic pregnancies must rupture before a salpingectomy can be performed (because it would otherwise be an abortion). The NY Times Magazine had an excellent article back in May? June? that covered this and other struggles in a country where abortion is completely illegal.

 

[Llenroc]

As nefarious an example of "doublethink" as I have ever heard.

If I'm not mistaken, MSFC is very much "Pro-Abortion".

The typical pro-choice group at a university or whatever organizes some rallys here and there, but has no direct effect on actual abortions.

MSFC is an organization that actively signs up its members for rotations at Planned Parenthood so that they can train to be abortion doctors.

If that isn't "Pro-Abortion", I don't know what is.

MSFC 👎

 

[burlypie]

MS4C builds on the idea that "without providers, there is no choice". Without a provider who can properly counsel a patient in all of her choices (without bias...) there is no choice. So if students are never given the opportunity to see how TABs are done, or the environment in which they can be safely performed, or to simply share the experience with a patient once or twice it's really hard to get doctors to provide abortions. And with out providers, there is no choice for the patient to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.

Back to the theme...choice. The group is there to allow students the opportunity to have this planned parenthood experience SHOULD THEY CHOOSE IT...as much as they are supportive of a woman and her choice regarding her pregnancy.

Wanna know how it worked at my school? The leader sent out an email to the students already signed up for the group and said, "hey if you're interested, sign up". Really, being Pro-choice is about being pro-woman, pro-adoption, pro-life, pro-safe abortion, all wrapped up in one.

 

[akpete]

MS4C builds on the idea that "without providers, there is no choice". Without a provider who can properly counsel a patient in all of her choices (without bias...) there is no choice. So if students are never given the opportunity to see how TABs are done, or the environment in which they can be safely performed, or to simply share the experience with a patient once or twice it's really hard to get doctors to provide abortions. And with out providers, there is no choice for the patient to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.

Back to the theme...choice. The group is there to allow students the opportunity to have this planned parenthood experience SHOULD THEY CHOOSE IT...as much as they are supportive of a woman and her choice regarding her pregnancy.

Wanna know how it worked at my school? The leader sent out an email to the students already signed up for the group and said, "hey if you're interested, sign up". Really, being Pro-choice is about being pro-woman, pro-adoption, pro-life, pro-safe abortion, all wrapped up in one.

👍 Well said.

 

[evade]

MS4C builds on the idea that "without providers, there is no choice". Without a provider who can properly counsel a patient in all of her choices (without bias...) there is no choice. So if students are never given the opportunity to see how TABs are done, or the environment in which they can be safely performed, or to simply share the experience with a patient once or twice it's really hard to get doctors to provide abortions. And with out providers, there is no choice for the patient to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.

Back to the theme...choice. The group is there to allow students the opportunity to have this planned parenthood experience SHOULD THEY CHOOSE IT...as much as they are supportive of a woman and her choice regarding her pregnancy.

Wanna know how it worked at my school? The leader sent out an email to the students already signed up for the group and said, "hey if you're interested, sign up". Really, being Pro-choice is about being pro-woman, pro-adoption, pro-life, pro-safe abortion, all wrapped up in one.

👍 👍 👍

Well said. That applies to your previous post in this thread as well. Here is a link to the New York Times article on abortion in El Salvador, for those who are interested:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/09/m...=d855d80018cd6c56&ei=5088&partner=rssuserland

 

[45408]

Yep, here we go. 🙄

No, we don't, because I'm not going to argue it. This is an educated crowd, and a few random pleas to whatever aren't going to change anyone's mind. Nevertheless, it's extremely bizarre to say it's as bad to keep all pregnancies as it is to abort all pregnancies.

Back to the theme...choice. The group is there to allow students the opportunity to have this planned parenthood experience SHOULD THEY CHOOSE IT...as much as they are supportive of a woman and her choice regarding her pregnancy.

Wanna know how it worked at my school? The leader sent out an email to the students already signed up for the group and said, "hey if you're interested, sign up". Really, being Pro-choice is about being pro-woman, pro-adoption, pro-life, pro-safe abortion, all wrapped up in one.

Our group sounds like they're a little more hard-line, because they said in their little class intro that they'd like to see it integrated into the rotations curriculum.

 

[evade]

Nevertheless, it's extremely bizarre to say it's as bad to keep all pregnancies as it is to abort all pregnancies.

You've entirely misconstrued what I said. What I meant is that I feel it is wrong to force a woman to do either of those things against her will. It has nothing to do with what you or I or anyone else thinks is right, because the decision of what to do with her pregnancy is hers and hers alone.

 

[45408]

You've entirely misconstrued what I said. What I meant is that I feel it is wrong to force a woman to do either of those things against her will. It has nothing to do with what you or I or anyone else thinks is right, because the decision of what to do with her pregnancy is hers and hers alone.

I'll let it go, but you have to see how "No one, absolutely no one, is advocating that all women terminate their pregnancies. That's just as wrong as advocating that all women continue their pregnancies." would be seen the way I read it.

 

[lilmo]

Our group sounds like they're a little more hard-line, because they said in their little class intro that they'd like to see it integrated into the rotations curriculum.

I wouldn't call our group hard-line, but we are working on adding an options counseling piece to the current rotations curriculum. I do feel it is important to be able to discuss a patient's options whether or not you wish to provide them.

Eventually I would like to have a curriculum similar to what burlypie was talking about yesterday - giving students the opportunity to learn.

 

[akpete]

Our group sounds like they're a little more hard-line, because they said in their little class intro that they'd like to see it integrated into the rotations curriculum.

I'm in the MCW MSFC group, and we are not that hard-line. We are pro-CHOICE and appreciate the OPTION for students to learn about it.

Hence, why I gave burly a 👍 .

 

[LADoc00]

I won't get into a flame war with anyone over this, but I'll answer your question. Teens are considered adults (and as such, are not required to notify or obtain consent from a parent) when it comes to three and only three things in medicine: mental health, treatment for drug and alcohol abuse, and all things sexual health. This includes obtaining birth control, treatment for STDs, and yes, making decisions regarding what to do with an unplanned pregnancy. No one's debating the first two on this list; why attack the third?

The majority of teens already involve a parent when they decide to terminate a pregnancy. Those who do not are far, far more likely to cite fear of abuse (psychological or physical) or fear of being kicked out of the house as reasons why they don't wish to tell a parent. If we were to pass a law stating that these young women have to tell an abusive parent that they're pregnant and wish to have an abortion, we run the risk that these women will resort to alternative measures.

In other states with parental notification or consent laws, such as Massachussets, Missouri, and Mississippi, the in-state teen abortion rate declined, but the teen abortion rate in neighboring states rose by nearly the same amount. It's not that teens aren't getting abortions, it's that they're waiting longer (indeed, there are more second-trimester abortions taking place in surrounding states than there were previously) and traveling long distances to do so. This, clearly, is more dangerous, and is NOT a desirable outcome. Further, there are fears that teenagers who are unable to travel out of state to obtain an abortion but feel that they cannot have a baby will resort to drastic measures such as attempting to self-abort. There are plenty of "instructions" on the internet for such things, and it's a valid concern.

There is a provision for judicial bypass, but it's not a particularly valid option for your average teenager. It requires a lot of knowledge about legal procedure (which I sadly do not have, and therefore can't expound upon), added time, and the decision as to whether or not a young woman can have an abortion without notifying her parents ultimately rests with the judge, who may or may not grant her that option. Some judges in other states are notoriously anti-abortion, and simply don't ever say yes to these women. And again, even if a woman is able to obtain an abortion without telling her parents, that's added time, and abortion procedures become more complicated the longer you wait.

Lastly, here in California, teen pregnancy rates have been steadily falling over the last decade, moreso than the national rates have been falling. Abortion rates have also been falling. We're clearly doing something right. The parental notification law won't help; if anything, it's going to harm the state's teens, because they're going to do what teens in other states have already done: wait longer and travel across state lines to get abortions anyway. We can't legislate good communications and relations within families. All we can do is help our patients make the best and safest decisions for themselves.

All data, claims, etc. come directly from this publication by the Center for Reproductive Health Research and Policy at UCSF:

http://crhrp.ucsf.edu/publications/files/ParentalNotification_2006Aug.pdf

I highly suggest reading it if you're interested.

Im confused how the f-ck someone is supposed to manage the potential post op complications from abortions if no one but the obviously ******ed teenager who got knocked up knows she had the procedure? You cant get an aspirin under 18 from a school nurse without parents consent but you can have a surgical procedure??

How stupid is this?

If someone has an abuse parent shouldnt they AT LEAST be involving CPS or police as a co-participant, right?

This prop. shouldnt even be voted for, ITS COMMON SENSE!!

FFS.

 

[Northerner]

You've entirely misconstrued what I said. What I meant is that I feel it is wrong to force a woman to do either of those things against her will. It has nothing to do with what you or I or anyone else thinks is right, because the decision of what to do with her pregnancy is hers and hers alone.

As I am pro-choice, I tend to agree with you, but I feel obligated to point out a point of miscommunication on the "keep your laws off my body" argument.

Pro-lifers seem to believe (legitimately) that there are two bodies to protect. Termination of one is wrong, in their mind, especially when there seems to be legitimate alternatives - ways for both to live. So the protest against "forcing a woman to bear the child against her will" isn't really a good argument, since the government does force mothers to bear children, even against their will, after a cut-off point in pregnancy. And a mother cannot terminate her child after it is born, either. People are forced to do things against their will all the time.

The point is - just because it's inside your body - that doesn't mean (to people who believe the fetus is an independent person with innate human rights) it's wrong to make laws against harming it. Doesn't fetal alcohol syndrome piss you off? Don't mothers who smoke during pregnancy piss you off? Likewise, completely terminating a fetus's life pisses pro-lifers off. They believe it is a human life with human rights at conception (or some variation thereof). Since we don't know "when life begins", you can't fault them for that.

 

[Dunce]

As I am pro-choice, I tend to agree with you, but I feel obligated to point out a point of miscommunication on the "keep your laws off my body" argument.

Pro-lifers seem to believe (legitimately) that there are two bodies to protect. Termination of one is wrong, in their mind, especially when there seems to be legitimate alternatives - ways for both to live. So the protest against "forcing a woman to bear the child against her will" isn't really a good argument, since the government does force mothers to bear children, even against their will, after a cut-off point in pregnancy. And a mother cannot terminate her child after it is born, either. People are forced to do things against their will all the time.

The point is - just because it's inside your body - that doesn't mean (to people who believe the fetus is an independent person with innate human rights) it's wrong to make laws against harming it. Doesn't fetal alcohol syndrome piss you off? Don't mothers who smoke during pregnancy piss you off? Likewise, completely terminating a fetus's life pisses pro-lifers off. They believe it is a human life with human rights at conception (or some variation thereof). Since we don't know "when life begins", you can't fault them for that.

very well said.

 

[Thievery Corp.]

The point is - just because it's inside your body - that doesn't mean (to people who believe the fetus is an independent person with innate human rights) it's wrong to make laws against harming it. Doesn't fetal alcohol syndrome piss you off? Don't mothers who smoke during pregnancy piss you off? Likewise, completely terminating a fetus's life pisses pro-lifers off. They believe it is a human life with human rights at conception (or some variation thereof). Since we don't know "when life begins", you can't fault them for that.

Northerner, that was about the best argument I've heard on that position.

That said, I respect other's opinions on the life of the fetus however I think the issues that you brought up are very black and white, because these are situations that the mother is in control of. The reasons for abortion are extremely varied from: "gee, I was really stupid last month at the bars, oops I'm already knocked up better go get rid of it" - to- the mother's life or heath is in serious danger if continued. Granted I am appalled by the former, and the latter is rarely the case, but often the reasons are in the continuum in between. So coming up with laws about termination to fit somewhere in that massive gray area is extraordinarily difficult and I think as it stands the supreme court has done the best job so far. I think the best solution is best left up to the patient (and hopefully a supportive partner) and her physician.

 

[india7]

They believe it is a human life with human rights at conception (or some variation thereof). Since we don't know "when life begins", you can't fault them for that.

And a key word in that sentence is THEY believe. How can THEY then mandate to me what I am to do with an unplanned pregnancy? And this decision is based utterly on their opinions not mine even though it would affect me for the rest of my life.
I do not believe that life begins at conception. At the end of the day I will always choose the already alive woman over a fetus. If you're against abortion, don't have one.
And 50% of all pregnancies each year are unintended. So this idea of "oh i really messed up last month at the bars" is not a majority. Couples, married or not, are faced with this decision each month. It is a highly personal, private decision. Not one to be made by people who do not know you, won't be around to assist, and are forcing their beliefs onto other people.

 

[Touchdown]

[Jumping into fire] Believe it or not there are educated people out there who are pro life. For one thing, if you remember from embryo halfway through the first trimester you have essentially a little human being, who for the most part just need some time to grow. Why do you put the point of life begining at birth? What exactly happens when the head pops out that signifys life begining, and how are some people (premies) considered human beings weeks before others even though they are at the same stage of development?

Now that doesnt mean I believe life begins at conception, because lets face it, it is estimated that 2/3rds of all blastocysts fail to implant in the utrine wall, and as a religious person I refuse to believe that my God designed humans so that 2/3rds of them never develop past a sack of cells. However, once that implantation occurs survival increases expeditionally. That leads me to place the begining of life then. Which means I think any controception is that does not cause the abortion of an attached embryo is ok, as is stem cells.

In the case of maternal endagerment, if someone is going to die because of this pregnancy I think that an abortion (if the mother wants it) is acceptable. When it comes to rape, I honestly dont know, on one hand the women did nothing wrong to warrent this pregnacy but on the other hand neither did the child. I also have a hard time with the genetic disease factor (good thing Im not a politican, I mean lobbyist, that has to write law.)

With millions of couples looking to adopt I think its sad that we have so many abortions. Now Ill address the common arguements pro choicers put out there against my position:

Its not fair for a women to experience the burden of pregnancy if they dont want the baby when the man doesnt

No its not, and I believe every effort should be made in the case of the father not caring for the baby to split the hardships. Unfortunatly, due to physiology this can only be limited to monetary support (50%) and if we were to go back to limited abortions a system should be set up to make sure the dads pay for their act as well.

What are we supposed to do with the unwanted child?

Adoption (allthough that system needs to be seriously overhauled first) there are plently of potential parents that would love to welcome the child into their home.

 

[NonTradMed]

Our school has a MSFC but I don't think they are very active (we live in a very red state so you'd think they would be). However, I notice that the MSFC bulletin board is right next to our school's medical Christian group bulletin. 😛

Abortion doesn't seem to be a hot topic at our school. I don't know if its apathy or what. I guess maybe it is, at least on my part.

Last week, I attended a dinner party with some friends and abortion did enter the conversation. It seems like most people have opinions about it but the biggest complaint is that it is such a make or break item to many people.

One girl mentioned how her homeschooling group went agape after she mentiond she hadn't decided on what candidate to vote for. One asked her, "Well, you aren't going to vote for the candidate that kills babies are you?" Her reply, "Are you talking about American babies or Iraqi babies?". Which to me kind of expressed my sentiment on abortion as well. While I am decidedly pro-choice (not pro-abortion because I'm not sure I would want one myself), I think there are policies out there that kills/harms far more people than abortion in this country, hence I am not a 'one-policy' voter---I do not vote based solely on abortion. I vote for the candidate which best represents all my ideals. And maybe that's why abortion is not such a hot topic for me, poverty kills 11 million babies a year, I'm more involved with fighting that death toll than with however many abortions are done each year .

 

[Northerner]

And a key word in that sentence is THEY believe. How can THEY then mandate to me what I am to do with an unplanned pregnancy? And this decision is based utterly on their opinions not mine even though it would affect me for the rest of my life.
I do not believe that life begins at conception. At the end of the day I will always choose the already alive woman over a fetus. If you're against abortion, don't have one.

Yeah, you must not have read or understood my post. Like it or not, the "they" (the government) to which you refer make all kinds of restrictions on what you can and cannot do. (I know, shocking) Welcome to the wonderful world of laws. You cannot abort a fetus after a certain point during pregnancy. You cannot terminate the life of a child outside the womb. Heck, "they" have even put laws in place to prevent you from terminating your own life as well.

That's fine that you don't believe life begins at conception - me neither. But you'd better warm up to the fact that you do not have 100% liberty to do whatever you want to whatever intermediate forms of human life there are on this planet, inside your body or not, just because it happens to be inside your body. My point was that pro-lifers (while I disagree with them) do have a legitimate claim to have a voice in decisions about your body when they believe that the growing life inside you is a human being with human rights. People are not allowed to do whatever they want with their body. Heck, surely you don't think people should be allowed to incubate bubonic plague inside their body, do you? It's their body, after all. How dare you try to stop them?! What about bombs? Is it alright with you if I have a surgeon implant a volatile bomb inside my abdominal cavity? It's my personal decision. Personally, I find it appealing to have a jar of unstable explosives inside my body. Makes me appreciate every moment more. It's my body, by your reasoning no one should have the right to tell me I can't, and so I will proceed. Maybe I'll be the guy sitting next to you on the train tomorrow, wide-eyed and nervously flinching at every lurch of the train...

 

[trustwomen]

You cant get an aspirin under 18 from a school nurse without parents consent but you can have a surgical procedure??

Y'know, I heard a similar argument once from a mom trying to force her daughter to have an abortion. "She can't get a tattoo without my consent but she can have a baby without my consent?! This is bull****! I should be the one to judge whether she is ready to have a baby or not!"

Guess what, lady, she had sex without your consent too. The kid was 14, in grade 7, slow and really naive; I felt the mom's pain, but we sent them home with a referral to a social worker (we didn't do the procedure, obviously).

Gee, would the California prop. ensure her "parental rights", too? (Do Californians want abortion clinics to invest in restraints for their procedure tables?) Or is it just about putting up a barrier to abortion? Hmmm.....

 

[trustwomen]

Yeah, you must not have read or understood my post. Like it or not, the "they" (the government) to which you refer make all kinds of restrictions on what you can and cannot do. (I know, shocking) Welcome to the wonderful world of laws. You cannot abort a fetus after a certain point during pregnancy. You cannot terminate the life of a child outside the womb. Heck, "they" have even put laws in place to prevent you from terminating your own life as well.

See, this is another reason why Canada rocks. Unlike the U.S., a fetus is not considered a legal person until it is born alive. There is no law restricting abortion at all, just as there is no law restricting any other medical procedure. Its practice is managed by doctors and their associations.

Anti-abortion folks up here love to trumpet how abortion is "legal until birth", and how "awful" that is - never mind that you can't get a third-trimester abortion here any more than you can in the U.S. (barring lethal fetal anomalies, of course), and there are proportionally far fewer second-trimester abortions here too.

Killing a born being is obviously murder everywhere, your body has nothing to do with it at that point. (Unless it's during a war, I guess - in which case kill away, right?)
And if you try to kill yourself, they don't put you in jail, they put you in the psych ward. (Do they put you in jail in the U.S.? I didn't think so, but maybe in the red states somewhere?...)

Abortion laws are fairly unique in that they restrict your actions, and your rights, more than do other laws that are intended to protect the public good. For instance, you can't walk around with a bomb in your abdomen because it's a bomb, and a bomb is an illegal weapon (bad analogy) - but you could walk around with a tennis ball in there if you could find a doctor willing to insert it (XXL testicle implants, anyone?). You can choose to refuse to donate organs, despite the fact that thousands die every year for lack of an organ that you would barely miss (kidney, for example). But somehow, when you're pregnant, your organs (uterus, heart, liver, etc.) can be used by "another" against your will. You have no legal right to stop them from being used. Even "ass-uming" that embryos are legal people, this is exceptionally intrusive. Damn, I can refuse to donate blood (even once the needle is already in my arm, I can change my mind), but I can't refuse to carry a parasitic fetus to term?

Yay Canada!

 

[Northerner]

Killing a born being is obviously murder everywhere, your body has nothing to do with it at that point. (Unless it's during a war, I guess - in which case kill away, right?)

That's the whole point - 1) we simply cannot say precisely when human life begins, 2) some people want to err on the side of caution and and believe that it begins at conception, they have the right to have their will represented, and 3) therefore under the assumption that life begins at conception (or whenever in the womb), terminating the life would be murder. I don't get what's so hard to understand about that line of reasoning. Personally, I disagree with the line of reasoning, but it is logical and legitimate - the "it's my body, I can do what I want" argument is not.

Abortion laws are fairly unique in that they restrict your actions, and your rights, more than do other laws that are intended to protect the public good. For instance, you can't walk around with a bomb in your abdomen because it's a bomb, and a bomb is an illegal weapon (bad analogy) - but you could walk around with a tennis ball in there if you could find a doctor willing to insert it (XXL testicle implants, anyone?).

Alright - again, I feel like you're not understanding. The same reason I can't walk around with a bomb in my abdomen even though it's my body (it's illegal because someone could/would get hurt) is the same reason pro-lifers believe abortion should be illegal even though it's your body (under their belief, someone [the baby] would be getting killed). Why am I the only one that can concede the legitimacy of a counterargument to my own opinion?

Abortion laws are fairly unique in that they restrict your actions, and your rights, more than do other laws that are intended to protect the public good.

Yeah, abortion laws are pretty much the only laws that restrict your actions and "rights". Maybe you're unfamiliar with the concept of a law, or the hippocratic oath.

Listen, it's fine that it's your opinion that life does not begin until birth. I agree. It is my opinion that the demise of a fetus is not the same as the death of a living, born human. It is my opinion that laws should allow abortions, because there are plenty of gray area situations where abortions would indeed be appropriate and justified. Building on that assumption, I believe that it is not for me to decide which circumstances warrant an abortion, but my acknowledgment that intentionally terminating a fetus is justifiable means that I want people to have the right if it is their choice and they deem it necessary. I also believe that pro-life ideology is weak at best, the proponents of it are generally nutjobs hurling propaganda, and that it is not in society's best interest.

That does not interfere with my ability to acknowledge the legitimacy of a counterargument to my opinion. That's why this issue is controversial - there is not clear-cut answer and we simply do not have all the information necessary to make a unanimous judgment call in the best interest of the people, on behalf of the people, and fully justified that we are doing the right thing. It's controversial. But don't pretend that you have any more answers than the rest of us.

 

[trustwomen]

That's the whole point - 1) we simply cannot say precisely when human life begins, 2) some people want to err on the side of caution and and believe that it begins at conception, they have the right to have their will represented, and 3) therefore under the assumption that life begins at conception (or whenever in the womb), terminating the life would be murder. I don't get what's so hard to understand about that line of reasoning. Personally, I disagree with the line of reasoning, but it is logical and legitimate - the "it's my body, I can do what I want" argument is not.

I recommend Judith Jarvis Thomson's "A Defense of Abortion" - it starts out with her "granting" the following premise: a fetus is a full person with all the associated rights. Then she explains why abortion is still morally permissible. It's complex, but you might find it interesting. I found it online at http://www.utdallas.edu/~jfg021000/thomson.html

Anyway, I just thought I'd mention this because I really believe in the "my body" argument, and the "personhood" thing seems irrelevant to me (social construct and all). Again, just my opinion, I don't want to do the abortion thread thing again (wow, it's been too many times already it seems).

Again, cheers to all my MSFC colleagues, and to the other pro-choicers on this thread (including you Northerner!).

 

[francisdoss]

The reason that I ask is mainly because at our school we have a group but it is not that big. Oh, I suppose that is b/c I'm in South Dakota and have a hell of a battle on our hands for the next four weeks.🙁

No but the obese med student group is.

 

[8744]

...See, this is another reason why Canada rocks....

They so totally rock! Hey! I'm having a partial birth abortion at noon! Party at my house at six! Let's rock!

Yay Canada!

 

[lilmo]

humor & sarcasm are always a great to lighten up a tense sdn thread.